The California Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the fraud exception to the Parol Evidence Rule weakened the effect of contract integration clauses, and may mean lengthier, and more costly, litigation for businesses. ...more
Many people appreciate the importance of contracts. We sign them daily, from our agreement to pay the amount at the bottom of our lunch receipt to that pesky cell phone contract that seems to increase every month. However,...more
As generally understood, the parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence to alter, vary or add to the terms of an integrated agreement. ”Parol” is derived from the French word, “parole” meaning...more
In Schron v. Troutman Saunders LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 00952 (N.Y. Feb 24, 2013), the New York Court of Appeals held that the phrase “other good and valuable consideration” within a contract was not ambiguous, and therefore...more
After decades of criticism, the California Supreme Court recently overturned Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass, 4 Cal.2d 258 (1935) (Pendergrass) which narrowed the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. ...more
The California Supreme Court has removed a legal barrier for litigants seeking to invalidate contracts on the basis of fraud.
Overruling a 75-year old decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule does...more
The California Supreme Court has re-examined and largely restricted the scope of the parol evidence rule (Code of Civil Procedure §1856) in the case of RiverIsland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit...more